Creating an Environment (Getting to Know Each Other & 1-min Research Presentation) / Present Situation of Higher Education
・Goals and Objectives
・Icebreaker (Introducing a Participant to Another)
・1-min Research Presentation (Group Activity and Exchanging Feedback)
・Present Situation of Higher Education
・Reflection
Participants were waiting for the first class to start, sitting without conversation in a somewhat tense atmosphere, perhaps because almost no one had friends in the classroom and they had been given a pre-assignment to prepare a 1-min presentation in front of the class.
I was worried if group activities would work in such a mood, but once they had an icebreaker 20 minutes after the class started, the atmosphere drastically changed into a relaxed one, and they engaged in the following 1-min research presentations, attentively listening to others and actively discussing and giving feedback in groups. They were completely getting along with each other by the end of the class.
I think participants came to be able to learn from each other as fellows by the instructor repeating the keyword “fellows” when explaining the goal of the class, “To set a clear goal of learning at UTokyo FFP by getting to know other fellows that you will be learning with,” and the objective, “To remember five or more names of your fellows,” in the beginning. The carefully designed class structure of gradually and smoothly developing simple activities into complicated ones was also effective; the class started by involving the participants with closed questions (i.e., questions with fixed answers like “Yes” or “No”), which are easy to answer, and gradually moved on to more complex activities such as an icebreaker (i.e, introducing another participant to someone else) and giving feedback in groups.
“1-min research presentation,” the main topic of the session, can be applied to real classes to “gain students’ trust by expressing the values and charms of the instructor’s research.” It became a precious opportunity for the participants to practice their presentation skills by receiving feedback on their presentations from the instructor and other participants, filming their presentations as an assignment, and reflecting on those videos by themselves. The instructor gave the following feedback to the whole class: “Even if you speak perfectly like an anchor, you cannot make the listeners understand the charms of your research.” It made me realize that, in classes, it is important for the instructors to create an environment where students can learn without feeling insecure by revealing themselves instead of trying to speak perfectly.
I am Sekido, a Project Researcher, coming from Sendai City to support “The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program” (UTokyo FFP). I joined UTokyo FFP to learn about and share with everyone “Classes that students enjoy and truly learn from.”
UTokyo FFP is a course conducted by the instructor, Dr. Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo) for graduate students, postdocs, and young faculty members at The University of Tokyo. The goal of the course is to help them become “excellent researchers” and “excellent educators” at the same time by acquiring “skills in designing and conducting classes that allow active learning” and “attitudes and mindsets for improvement and inquiry in their teaching.”
The course is held for two consecutive periods every other week in the spring and autumn semesters. Twenty-five participants per class are carefully selected and work together as classmates to pursue what education is across their affiliations (i.e., regardless of which school they belong to or whether they are students or faculties). It is a “course to learn ‘how to teach at university'” consisting of eight sessions, where the participants learn about topics such as class design, syllabus, evaluation, microteaching, and a career path as a faculty member, through group activities in a practical and active manner.
I would like to share with you the atmosphere of the learning occurring in the classroom and what I realized through the classes.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 5 “Microteaching Clinic”
Date/Time: August 5th (Sun), 2018, 09:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 26 people (Six of them conducted microteaching sessions.)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Microteaching.” Based on the goal, “Be able to conduct classes that promote student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Understand and be able to utilize “Learning Sciences” (e.g., motivation) in class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when conducting classes through refining others’ microteaching sessions. (Session)
③ Be able to utilize the refinement of your microteaching session in your future practice. (Session) *③ was an objective for those who conducted microteaching sessions.
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. They conducted and examined microteaching sessions based on their preparation. (1) Preparation
All participants were asked to learn about “Learning Sciences” by watching the videos for WEEK 3 of “Interactive Teaching” and reading Chapter 3 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). This was because it is important to understand theories related to enhancing motivation when you conduct classes that promote learning. Also, those who were in charge of conducting microteaching sessions were asked to submit class design sheets and handouts beforehand.
(2) Session
[1] Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others. They consisted of six lecturers of microteaching sessions and 20 observers who took their lectures.
[2] Microteaching Session & Examination 1 (09:15–12:10)
Participants first reviewed the significance of conducting and examining microteaching sessions. Then, they were divided into two groups and moved to separate classrooms. Three lecturers conducted lectures per room. Following their 6-min lectures, the participants exchanged their ideas on what was good about the lectures, what points needed improvement, and how they could be improved in groups and the whole classroom in 40 minutes. Finally, the whole participants gathered and organized the points the lecturers/observers should be careful of when conducting/taking lectures for the second time in the afternoon.
Microteaching sessions
[3] Refining Microteaching Sessions (Lecturers) / What You Can Learn from Microteaching Sessions (Observers) (13:10–14:10)
Participants worked on activities in two separate classrooms.
Those who conducted microteaching sessions worked on improving their lectures based on the feedback they had received from observers in the first trial.
Meanwhile, observers first shared in groups what they had learned from the first trial of microteaching sessions and then examined and organized what kind of perspectives they should use in class observation so that they can give the lecturers effective feedback.
[4] Microteaching Session and Examination 2 (14:20–16:30)
All six lecturers conducted their second-time lectures, which were improved based on the feedback they had received on the first trial, in the same classroom this time. Each 6-min lecture was followed by a 10-min discussion, where they exchanged their ideas on what was excellent about the lecture, what points were improved, what points still needed improvement, and how they could be improved. The observers were able to examine the lecture from various perspectives since they consisted of both who took the lecture for the first time and the second time.
[5] Wrap-up (16:30–17:00)
Lastly, participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
Participants learning from each other ([5] Wrap-up)3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 26 participants was as follows: 11 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, 6 graduate students or postdocs, three teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, two teachers or staff members of elementary school, two teachers or staff members of vocational school, and two company employees. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 56 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 40 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 35 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 61 percent answered “Yes,” and 4 percent answered, “No (not so much).”
Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“I was able to gain new perspectives through receiving feedback from people with various backgrounds.” (Lecturer of the microteaching sessions)
“It was great that we had a chance to actually refine our lectures for the second trial on the same day, not just examining the first ones.” (Lecturer of the microteaching sessions)
“The program became a good opportunity for me to organize the viewpoints to examine classes.” (Observer of the microteaching sessions)
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a one-day seminar on syllabuses on Sunday, November 11th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 4 “Active Learning Strategies”
Date/Time: August 4th (Sat), 2018, 09:00–16:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 43 people
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Active Learning Strategies.” Based on the goal, “Be able to introduce active learning (AL) strategies into classes that promote student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of AL. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when designing AL by refining the activities in the classes designed by others. (Exercise in the morning)
③ Be able to design activities that promote student learning. (Exercise in the afternoon)
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. The session started with reviewing what they had learned at home, followed by the exercises of improving a sample AL design and designing activities for their own classes.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEKs 1–2 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapters 1–2 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily designed and submitted the activities to be used in their classes.
(2) Session
[1] Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.
[2] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (09:15–09:30)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of introducing AL and the points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving an Activity (09:30–12:00)
Participants examined a sample activity and had a group discussion on what was good about it and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned in the preparation and during the reviewing session.
Participants learning from each other (Improving a sample activity)
[4] Exercise of Designing an Activity (13:00–15:30)
Participants designed activities to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the designed activity was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.
Group discussion (Designing an activity)
[5] Wrap-up (15:30–16:00)
Lastly, participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 43 participants was as follows: 17 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, nine graduate students or postdocs, 10 teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, three teachers or staff members of elementary school, and four teachers or staff members of vocational school. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 49 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 47 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 23 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 74 percent answered “Yes,” and 3 percent answered, “No (not so much).”
Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“I’ll be sure to practice the activity I designed in today’s training program and further improve it.” (Faculty member)
“I felt that the whole training itself was conducted in an AL style, so it was great to join the program.” (Faculty member)
“I learned that AL is not a goal but a means.” (Elementary school teacher)
We are relieved that the program was appreciated to a certain extent, but the satisfaction slightly decreased compared to the past three events, which we are taking seriously. We are eager to provide the participants with the opportunities to share their practices and improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the feedback (e.g, to hold a two-day event on AL strategies; to let the participants examine more strategies).
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a one-day seminar on syllabuses on Sunday, November 11th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 3 “Evaluation That Promotes Learning (Rubrics)”
Date/Time: Session 1: June 3rd (Sun), 2018, 09:00–16:00; Session 2: August 3rd (Sat), 2018, 14:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 34 people (23 people for Session 2)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Evaluation That Promotes Learning.” Based on the goal, “Be able to conduct an evaluation that promotes student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of evaluation. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when conducting an evaluation through refining rubrics. (Exercise in the morning of Session 1)
③ Create a rubric that promotes student learning (Exercise in the afternoon of Session 1)
④ Use the rubric in one’s workplace and improve it for better use. (Session 2)
2. Summary
This program was structured as “1) Learning and creation; 2) Practice; and 3) Report of practice and improvement.” Participants learned about rubrics together and created and improved a rubric in Session 1, used the rubrics they created in their classes, and gathered again two months later to report their practices and examine what they should do to improve them in Session 2. This design was intended to let the participants utilize what they learn in the program.
Also, this program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. During the session, they first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then worked on exercises for improving sample rubrics and creating rubrics for their classes.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 6 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 6 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily designed and submitted their rubrics.
(2) Session 1 (June 3rd)
[1] Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.
[2] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (09:15–09:30)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of general evaluation and points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving a Rubric (09:30–11:45)
Participants examined a sample rubric and had a group discussion on what was good about it and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned in the preparation and during the reviewing session.
Participants learning from each other (Group presentation)
[4] Exercise of Creating a Rubric (13:00–15:30)
Participants designed rubrics to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the designed rubric was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.
Group discussion
[5] Wrap-up (15:30–16:00)
Participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
(3) Session 2 (August 3rd)
[1] Introduction (14:00–14:10)
Participants reviewed the goals and rules of the entire program once again, including the goals and structure of Session 2.
[2] Report of Participants’ Practices and Improvement of Rubrics in Groups (14:10–16:40)
First of all, each participant reported what they could or could not practice over the last month, why they could not practice, and what problems they had. Then, they examined how to improve their rubrics through group activities.
Group activity on improving their rubrics
[3] Wrap-up (16:40–17:00)
Lastly, participants organized what they learned through the two sessions, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 34 participants was as follows: 14 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, seven graduate students or postdocs, seven teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, one teacher or staff member of elementary school, three teachers or staff members of vocational school, and two company employees. Since Session 2 was held on a weekday, some people could not join the program because of their work, but even so, 23 people participated. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 70 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 26 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.”
Another five-point scale question asked whether it was effective to have an opportunity to design and practice evaluation, and report it to others during the program held in two days with two months in between (Yes (very much); Yes; Unsure; No (not so much); No (not at all)). 61 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 35 percent answered “Yes,” and 4 percent who had no chance to practice answered, “Unsure.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the two-day workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 52 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much)” and 48 percent answered “Yes.” Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“The opportunity for the practice helped me remember what I had learned and motivated me to proceed to the next step.” (Faculty member)
“I had to practice what I learned and report it in Session 2, so I managed to keep myself motivated even if I was busy.” (Senior high school teacher)
“I received comments from participants and instructors with various backgrounds, so I was able to take things objectively, which I had only viewed from my perspective.” (Faculty member)
Following the previous event, the program was held as a two-day event. We are relieved to know that it was appreciated to a certain extent. We are eager to provide the participants with the opportunities to share their practices and improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the feedback (e.g., how long we should take between Sessions 1 and 2).
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a one-day seminar on syllabuses on Sunday, November 11th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
A report of our book, “Hakase ni nattara dō ikiru? 78mei ga kataru career path [How do you live your life after receiving a PhD? Career paths described by 78 people],” written by mainly UTokyo FFP alumni is now available on the University of Tokyo website.
You can grasp the overview of the book in the article. Please refer to the following links.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 2 “Designing a 90-min Class”
Date/Time: Session 1: April 22nd (Sun), 2018, 09:00–16:00; Session 2: June 2nd (Sat), 2018, 14:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 20 people (Capacity: 20 people)
Fee: 10,000 JPY (Free of charge for graduate students and postdocs)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Designing a 90-min Class.” Based on the goal, “Be able to design a class that helps students deepen their learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to improve a class by using a class design sheet (a format for class design introduced in “Interactive Teaching”). (Exercise in the morning of Session 1)
③ Be able to design one’s class by using a class design sheet. (Exercise in the afternoon of Session 1)
④ Use the class design sheet in one’s workplace and improve it for better use. (Session 2)
2. Summary
This program was structured as follows: 1) Participants learn together about “Designing a 90-min Class” in Session 1; 2) They respectively conduct the classes they designed at their schools/institutions; 3) They gather again a month later to report their practices and examine with other participants what they should do to improve the design. This design was intended to let the participants utilize what they learn in the program.
Also, this program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. During the session, they first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then worked on exercises of improving a sample class design sheet and creating their own class design sheets.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 4 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 4 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily created and submitted their class design sheets.
(2) Session 1 (April 22nd)
[1] Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.
[2] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (09:15–09:45)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of class design and points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving a Class Design Sheet (09:45–11:45)
Participants examined a sample class design sheet and had a group discussion on what was good about it and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned in the preparation and during the reviewing session.
Participants learning from each other (Group presentation)
[4] Exercise of Creating a Class Design Sheet (13:00–15:30)
Participants created class design sheets to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the class design was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.
Participants exchanging their ideas in pairs
[5] Wrap-up (15:30–16:00)
Participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
(3) Session 2 (June 2nd)
[1] Introduction (14:00–14:10)
Participants reviewed the goals and rules of the entire program once again, including the goals and structure of Session 2.
[2] Report of Participants’ Practices and Improvement of Class Design Sheets in Groups (14:10–16:30)
First of all, each participant reported what they could or could not practice over the last month, why they could not practice, and what problems they had. Then, they examined how to improve their class design sheets through group activities.
Group activity on improving their class design sheets
[3] Wrap-up (16:30–16:55)
Lastly, participants organized what they learned through the two sessions, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 20 participants was as follows: 10 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, four graduate students or postdocs, two teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, one teacher or staff member of elementary school, and three teachers or staff members of vocational school. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 57 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” and 43 percent were “very satisfied.”
Another five-point scale question asked whether it was effective to have an opportunity to design and practice class design, and report it to others during the program held in two days with a month in between (Yes (very much); Yes; Unsure; No (not so much); No (not at all)). 64 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” and 36 percent answered “Yes.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the two-day workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 50 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much)” and 50 percent answered “Yes.”
We held a two-day event for the first time but are relieved to know that it was appreciated to a certain extent. We are eager to provide the participants with the opportunities to share their practices and improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the feedback.
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a two-day workshop on evaluation (rubrics) on Sunday, June 3rd (as DAY 1) and Friday, August 3rd (as DAY 2). Also, we are planning to hold two one-day seminars: “Active Learning Strategies” on Saturday, August 4th, and “Microteaching” on Sunday, August 5th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
With the new semester coming, we hope these videos will become an opportunity for you to reexamine the “evaluation that promotes learning” including rubrics.
For those who joined the program on the day, please remember once again what you had in mind for your prospect after completing the half-year training program and renew your determination toward the next semester.
For those who are considering joining future events related to “Interactive Teaching,” we hope these videos will be helpful in grasping the atmosphere of the event.
Lastly, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the UTokyo TV staff for their continuous support from the shooting to the publication of the videos.
